Residential High Performance Windows and Doors Final Report

Transcription

1 Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative 019 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards Residential High Performance Windows and Doors Final Report Measure Number: 019-RES-ENV3-F Residential Envelope August 017 This report was prepared by the California Statewide Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Program that is funded, in part, by California utility customers under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission. Copyright 017 Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison, Southern California Gas Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, and Sacramento Municipal Utility District. All rights reserved, except that this document may be used, copied, and distributed without modification. Neither Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison, Southern California Gas Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, or any of its employees makes any warranty, express of implied; or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any data, information, method, product, policy or process disclosed in this document; or represents that its use will not infringe any privately-owned rights including, but not limited to, patents, trademarks or copyrights.

2 Document Information Category: Codes and Standards Keywords: Authors: Project Management: Statewide Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative, Statewide Utility Codes and Standards Team, Codes and Standards Enhancements, 019 Title 4 Part 6, efficiency, residential, fenestration, windows, doors, opaque, entry, U-factor, solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC), low emissivity glass. Ken Nittler (Enercomp, Inc.) California Utilities Statewide Codes and Standards Team: Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison, SoCalGas, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, and Sacramento Municipal Utility District 019 Title 4, Part 6 CASE Report 019-RES-ENV3-F Page i

3 Table of Contents Executive Summary...v 1. Introduction...1. Measure Description....1 Measure Overview.... Measure History....3 Summary of Proposed Changes to Code Documents Regulatory Context Compliance and Enforcement Market Analysis Market Structure Technical Feasibility, Market Availability, and Current Practices Market Impacts and Economic Assessments Economic Impacts Energy Savings Key Assumptions for Energy Savings Analysis Energy Savings Methodology Per-Unit Energy Impacts Results Lifecycle Cost and Cost-Effectiveness Energy Cost Savings Methodology Energy Cost Savings Results Incremental First Cost Lifetime Incremental Maintenance Costs Lifecycle Cost-Effectiveness First-Year Statewide Impacts Statewide Energy Savings and Lifecycle Energy Cost Savings Statewide Water Use Impacts Statewide Material Impacts Other Non-Energy Impacts Proposed Revisions to Code Language Standards Reference Appendices ACM Reference Manual Compliance Manuals Compliance Documents Bibliography...8 Appendix A : Statewide Savings Methodology...31 Appendix B : Discussion of Impacts of Compliance Process on Market Actors...3 Appendix C : Prototype Details Title 4, Part 6 CASE Report 019-RES-ENV3-F Page ii

4 List of Tables Table 1: Scope of Code Change Proposal... vi Table : Estimated Statewide First-Year a Energy and Water Savings... viii Table 3: Industries Receiving Energy Efficiency Related Investment, by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code Table 4: Prototype Buildings used for Energy, Demand, Cost, and Environmental Impacts Analysis Table : First-Year Energy Impacts per Single Family Dwelling Unit New Construction Table 6: First-Year Energy Impacts per Multifamily Building (8-unit prototype) New Construction Table 7: TDV Energy Cost Savings Over 30-Year Period of Analysis per Single Family Dwelling Unit New Construction Table 8: TDV Energy Cost Savings Over 30-Year Period of Analysis per 8-unit Multifamily New Construction... 0 Table 9: Summary of Incremental Costs Applied in the Analysis... 0 Table 10: Projected Incremental Costs for the Proposed High Performance Fenestration Measure... 1 Table 11: Lifecycle Cost-Effectiveness Summary per Single Family Dwelling Unit New Construction Table 1: Lifecycle Cost-Effectiveness Summary per 8-Unit Multifamily Building Type New Construction... 3 Table 13: Statewide Energy and Energy Cost Impacts (Combined Single Family and Multifamily) New Construction... 4 Table 14: Statewide Energy and Energy Cost Impacts (Combined Single Family and Multifamily) Additions and Alterations... 4 Table 1: Projected New Residential Construction Completed in 00 by Climate Zone a... 3 Table 16: Translation from Forecast Climate Zone (FCZ) to Building Standards Climate Zone (BSCZ). 33 Table 17: Converting from Forecast Climate Zone (FCZ) to Building Standards Climate Zone (BSCZ) Example Calculation Table 18: Roles of Market Actors in the Proposed Compliance Process Table 19: Prototype Multiplier Details Title 4, Part 6 CASE Report 019-RES-ENV3-F Page iii

5 List of Figures Figure 1: Cooling climate prescriptive standards over time... 3 Figure : California climate zones... 4 Figure 3: IECC climate zones... Figure 4: ENERGY STAR climate zones... 6 Figure : ENERGY STAR criteria... 6 Figure 6: Dual pane insulating glass unit... 9 Figure 7: California median home values 1997 to Title 4, Part 6 CASE Report 019-RES-ENV3-F Page iv

6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction The Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) initiative presents recommendations to support California Energy Commission s (Energy Commission) efforts to update California s Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 4, Part 6) to include new requirements or to upgrade existing requirements for the use of various technologies. The four California Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs) Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas and Electric, Southern California Edison, and SoCalGas and two Publicly Owned Utilities (POUs) Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and Sacramento Municipal Utility District sponsored this effort. The program goal is to prepare and submit proposals that will result in cost-effective enhancements to improve energy efficiency and energy performance in California buildings. This report and the code change proposals presented herein is a part of the effort to develop technical and cost-effectiveness information for proposed regulations on building energy efficient design practices and technologies. The Statewide CASE Team submits code change proposals to the Energy Commission, the state agency that has authority to adopt revisions to Title 4, Part 6. The Energy Commission will evaluate proposals submitted by the Statewide CASE Team and other stakeholders. The Energy Commission may revise or reject proposals. See the Energy Commission s 019 Title 4 website for information about the rulemaking schedule and how to participate in the process: Measure Description This measure improves the performance of fenestration products windows and doors in low-rise residential buildings by lowering the required U-factors for both products, and for windows by adjusting the solar heat gain coefficients (SHGC) by Climate Zone to further reduce energy use. For windows, the proposal lowers the U-factor in all Climate Zones from 0.3 to Btu/hr-ft - F. In Climate Zones, 4, and 6-1 that have significant cooling demands, the proposal lowers the SHGC from 0. to 0.3. This level of performance is already in wide use and is typical of products with low conductance frame materials and dual pane glazing with an extra low solar heat gain low emissivity coating, argon gas fill, and an improved spacer. This proposal also changes the requirements in Climate Zone 16 to have no requirement for SHGC like Climate Zones 1, 3 and that have limited cooling and are dominated by heating. For the compliance software, the no requirement for the Standard Design is currently modeled with a 0.0 SHGC that is representative of dual glazing with a high solar gain low emissivity coating. Some stakeholders have commented on a situation that exists under the performance approach where compliance is harder when the most widely available extra low solar heat gain low emissivity coatings are specified in the heating Climate Zones 1, 3, and now 16. To address this concern, this proposal includes a recommendation that is not included in the energy analysis for changing the no requirement to 0.3 SHGC. This will allow credit when higher SHGC products are used, but will still show some penalty for the lower SHGC products. Overall, this will make compliance easier with widely used fenestration products while encouraging the use of more appropriate higher SHGC products. Comments were submitted with alternatives to this recommendation and are discussed in Section 3... For swinging doors, such as those at the front entry and between the conditioned space and the garage, the proposal lowers the U-factor in all Climate Zones to 0.0 Btu/hr-ft - F. This level of performance is typical of an insulated door and is widely available. The definition of doors has been lowered from Title 4, Part 6 CASE Report 019-RES-ENV3-F Page v

7 percent (½ lite) to percent (¼ lite) of glass or less. Doors with more than percent (¼ lite) are called glazed doors under the standards and are treated as windows under this proposal. It is anticipated that this will result in an increase in the use of rated and labeled doors. An exemption is provided for fire protection doors between the garage and residence based on stakeholder comments. Under the current standards, the fenestration performance requirements for new construction also apply to additions, alterations, and replacement windows except for the case of performance compliance path alterations. This approach is unchanged for these cases so the performance levels made in this proposal will apply. No changes are proposed for performance alterations that have different requirements. Scope of Code Change Proposal Table 1 summarizes the scope of the proposed changes and which sections of the Standards, Reference Appendices, Alternative Calculation Method (ACM) Reference Manual, and compliance documents that will be modified as a result of the proposed change. Table 1: Scope of Code Change Proposal Measure Name Doors Doors Doors Windows and Doors Windows and Doors Type of Requirement Definitions Door, Glazed Door, Fenestration Area Definitions Door Area Prescriptive Prescriptive Prescriptive Modified Section(s) of Title 4, Part (b) - Revise definitions to change glazed area to % and define residential area to include windows, skylights and glazed doors 100.1(b) - Add definition of door area that does not include glazed doors 10.1(c) - Add section covering doors Table 10.1-A - Revise Fenestration U- factor and SGHC values. Add a row with door U-factors 10.(a)1B and 10.(b)1B revise to remove SHGC requirement from Climate Zone 16 Modified Title 4, Part 6 Appendices Will Compliance Software Be Modified Modified Compliance Document(s) None No No None No No None Yes Yes None Market Analysis and Regulatory Impact Assessment Yes Yes None Yes Yes For windows, the proposed change is an incremental improvement over the prescriptive requirements under the 016 Title 4, Part 6 Standards. Many of the windows installed under the current standards already meet these proposed performance levels. The window industry is well versed in understanding what it takes to meet these proposed values a low conductance frame, dual glazing that includes a low emissivity coating, argon gas fill, and an improved spacer system. In Climate Zones, 4 and 6-1, the low emissivity coating needs to have a low solar gain. In Climate Zones 1, 3, and now 16, the low emissivity coating needs to have a high solar 019 Title 4, Part 6 CASE Report 019-RES-ENV3-F Page vi

8 heat gain. For builders and installers, there is no difference in the specification or installation of this product other than ensuring it meets the new performance levels that are widely available. For doors with less than percent glazed area, typical of front entry doors and doors between the house and garage, the proposed change targets the use of insulated door products. Insulated door products (which typically have insulation sandwiched between either steel or fiberglass panels) are already in wide use. For doors with percent or more glazed area, typical of sliding glass and French doors, the proposal requires that these products meet the same requirement as window products. Under the 016 Title 4, Part 6 Standards, the threshold is for doors with 0 percent or more glazed area. Most of these products are provided by window manufacturers and can meet the proposed percent criteria using the same components as windows commonly utilize. Overall this proposal increases the wealth of the State of California. California consumers will save more money on energy than they do for financing the efficiency measure. The proposed changes to Title 4, Part 6 Standards have a negligible impact on the complexity of the standards or the cost of enforcement. When developing this code change proposal, the Statewide CASE Team interviewed building officials, Title 4 energy analysts and others involved in the code compliance process to simplify and streamline the compliance and enforcement of this proposal. Cost-Effectiveness The proposed code change was found to be cost-effective statewide with benefit-to-cost (B/C) ratios over five for single family and multifamily new construction. Measures that have a B/C ratio of 1.0 or greater are cost-effective. The larger the B/C ratio, the faster the measure pays for itself from energy savings. There is one case single family in Climate Zone 7 where the B/C ratio is 0.6, with the present value of the savings being $81 and the incremental cost being $147. This proposal recommends that in this one case, with the relatively modest added measure cost, that the proposed U-factors and SHGC values be applied to Climate Zone 7, so that there are uniform requirements statewide. This will help to simplify the standards, and make enforcement and product specification less complex. Cost-effectiveness varies significantly between single family and multifamily building prototypes used in Title 4, Part 6 Standards evaluations suggesting different requirements by climate zone for the two building types. The calculation of B/C ratio compares the 30-year lifecycle benefits (cost savings) to the lifecycle costs over the same time period. See Section for a detailed description of the costeffectiveness analysis. Statewide Energy Impacts Table shows the estimated energy savings over the first twelve months of implementation of the proposed code change. See Section 4 for more details. 019 Title 4, Part 6 CASE Report 019-RES-ENV3-F Page vii

9 Table : Estimated Statewide First-Year a Energy and Water Savings Measure First-Year Electricity Savings (GWh/yr) First-Year Peak Electrical Demand Reduction (MW) First-Year Water Savings (million gallons/yr) First-Year Natural Gas Savings (million therms/yr) New Construction Additions Alterations TOTAL a. First year savings from all buildings completed statewide in 00. Compliance and Enforcement The Statewide CASE Team worked with stakeholders to develop a recommended compliance and enforcement process and to identify the impacts this process will have on various market actors. The compliance process is described in Section.. The impacts the proposed measure will have on various market actors is described in Section 3.3 and 0. The key issues related to compliance and enforcement are summarized below: For windows, the proposed change is an incremental modification to the products already in use. Other than checking for the new U-factors and SHGC performance levels, the impacts on compliance and enforcement are negligible. For doors, the proposal will likely result in an increase in the use of National Fenestration Rating System (NFRC) rated and labeled doors rather than default values. Although a needs analysis has been conducted with the affected market actors while developing the code change proposal, the code requirements may change between the time the final CASE Report is submitted and the time the 019 Standards are adopted. The recommended compliance process and compliance documentation may also evolve with the code language. To effectively implement the adopted code requirements, a plan should be developed that identifies potential barriers to compliance when rolling-out the code change and approaches that should be deployed to minimize the barriers. 019 Title 4, Part 6 CASE Report 019-RES-ENV3-F Page viii

10 1. INTRODUCTION The Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) initiative presents recommendations to support California Energy Commission s (Energy Commission) efforts to update California s Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 4, Part 6) to include new requirements or to upgrade existing requirements for various technologies. The four California Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs) Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas and Electric, Southern California Edison and SoCalGas and two Publicly Owned Utilities (POUs) Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and Sacramento Municipal Utility District sponsored this effort. The program goal is to prepare and submit proposals that will result in cost-effective enhancements to energy efficiency in buildings. This report and the code change proposal presented herein is a part of the effort to develop technical and cost-effectiveness information for proposed requirements on building energy efficient design practices and technologies. The Statewide CASE Team submits code change proposals to the Energy Commission, the state agency that has authority to adopt revisions to Title 4, Part 6. The Energy Commission will evaluate proposals submitted by the Statewide CASE Team and other stakeholders. The Energy Commission may revise or reject proposals. See the Energy Commission s 019 Title 4 website for information about the rulemaking schedule and how to participate in the process: The overall goal of this CASE Report is to propose a high performance windows and doors code change proposal. The report contains pertinent information supporting the code change. When developing the code change proposal and associated technical information presented in this report, the Statewide CASE Team worked with a number of industry stakeholders including building officials, manufacturers, builders, utility incentive program managers, Title 4 energy analysts, and others involved in the code compliance process. The proposal incorporates feedback received during two public stakeholder workshops that the Statewide CASE Team held on September 14, 016 and March 14, 017. Section of this CASE Report provides a description of the measure and its background. This section also presents a detailed description of how this change is accomplished in the various sections and documents that make up the Title 4, Part 6. Section 3 presents the market analysis, including a review of the current market structure. Section 3. describes the feasibility issues associated with the code change, such as whether the proposed measure overlaps or conflicts with other portions of the building standards such as fire, seismic, and other safety standards and whether technical, compliance, or enforceability challenges exist. Section 4 presents the per unit energy, demand, and energy cost savings associated with the proposed code change. This section also describes the methodology that the Statewide CASE Team used to estimate energy, demand, and energy cost savings. Section presents the lifecycle cost and cost-effectiveness analysis. This includes a discussion of additional materials and labor required to implement the measure and a quantification of the incremental cost. It also includes estimates of incremental maintenance costs. That is, equipment lifetime and various periodic costs associated with replacement and maintenance during the period of analysis. Section 6 presents the statewide energy savings and environmental impacts of the proposed code change for the first year after the 019 Standards take effect. This includes the amount of energy that will be saved by California building owners and tenants, and impacts (increases or reductions) on material with emphasis placed on any materials that are considered toxic. Statewide water consumption impacts are also considered. 019 Title 4, Part 6 CASE Report 019-RES-ENV3-F Page 1

11 Section 7 concludes the report with specific recommendations with strikeout (deletions) and underlined (additions) language for the Standards, Reference Appendices, Alternative Calculation Method (ACM) Reference Manual, Compliance Manual, and compliance documents.. MEASURE DESCRIPTION.1 Measure Overview This measure improves the performance of fenestration products windows and doors in the low-rise residential buildings by lowering the required U-factors for both products, and for windows by adjusting the solar heat gain coefficients (SHGC) by Climate Zone to further reduce energy use. Improving the performance of fenestration products will reduce the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) loads. This measure also has significant impact on peak cooling loads by reducing the solar heat gain transmitted through the windows, which is a significant part of the cooling loads. For windows, the proposed measure: Reduces the prescriptive window U-factor from 0.3 to in all Climate Zones. Reduces the prescriptive window SHGC from 0. to 0.3 in Climate Zones, 4, and 6 through 1. Changes Climate Zone 16 to a higher SHGC specification, similar to Climate Zones 1, 3 and that also have more heating load than cooling. Recommends an alternative for the high SHGC Climate Zones to consider establishing a minimum 0.3 SHGC requirement. For doors, the proposed measure: Introduces a prescriptive swinging entry door U-factor requirement of 0.0 in all Climate Zones. Provides an exemption for swinging doors that are required to have fire protection by other parts of the Title 4 building code. Requires verification using a National Fenestration Rating System (NFRC) label, like the prescriptive window requirements. Changes the definition of glazed doors that are treated the same as windows from 0 percent to percent glazed area. This code change is achieved by minor changes to existing code language, and the addition of a brief section to the prescriptive requirements to cover the new door criteria. Under the current standards, the fenestration performance requirements for new construction also apply to additions, alterations, and replacement windows except for the case of performance alterations. This approach is unchanged for these cases so the performance levels made in this proposal will apply. No changes are proposed for performance alterations that have different requirements.. Measure History Prescriptive window performance has increased dramatically since the 1998 standards with the shift to low conductance frames, low emissivity low solar gain glass coatings and argon gas filled cavities that are now widespread throughout California. Opaque door requirements have not changed for many code cycles, even though there is wide penetration of insulated door products available. The proposed change in U-factors and window SHGC are show in 019 Title 4, Part 6 CASE Report 019-RES-ENV3-F Page

12 Figure 1, as well as the historical values over time. Cooling Climate Prescriptive Standards U-Factor or SHGC ? Standard Year Window U-factor Window SHGC Door U-factor Figure 1: Cooling climate prescriptive standards over time Historically, the building industry has been reluctant to support increased use of high performance glazing in part because of concerns about higher costs and product availability. In recent years, the window industry has continually advanced the performance of mainstream glazing products with technological advancements. The current prescriptive requirements of 0.3 U-factor and 0. SHGC (in cooling dominated Climate Zones) has been surpassed by many California builders, as evidenced by a recent data download from the CalCerts registry, which shows that about two-thirds of glazing installed in single family homes from January 01 through April 016 had a SHGC of 0.4 or less. With higher performance products available from all major manufacturers servicing the California market, it is important for the prescriptive requirements to remain current to avoid a reduction in the stringency of the standards. Glazing is an especially significant energy efficiency product in the California Time Dependent Valuation (TDV)-based compliance environment as peak cooling demand impacts related to west facing glazing are aligned with high TDV times of day..3 Summary of Proposed Changes to Code Documents The sections below provide a summary of how each Title 4, Part 6 documents will be modified by the proposed change. See Section 7 of this report for detailed proposed revisions to code language..3.1 Standards Change Summary The proposed measure will require updating the definitions section 100.1(b), prescriptive section 10.1(c), Table 10.1-A, 10.(a)1B and 10.(b)1B..3. Reference Appendices Change Summary The proposed measure will require changes to the glossary and Table 4..1 door U-factors..3.3 Alternative Calculation Method (ACM) Reference Manual Change Summary This proposed measure will require modification to the description of the Standard Design doors in section of the Residential ACM Reference Manual. The windows already reference Standards Table 10.1-A, which will be updated as part of this proposal. 019 Title 4, Part 6 CASE Report 019-RES-ENV3-F Page 3

13 .3.4 Compliance Manual Change Summary The Residential Compliance Manual will need to be revised to match the proposed requirements and to describe the treating of doors and glazed doors..3. Compliance Documents Change Summary Add a field to the CF1R to state where the performance values are from either NFRC values or defaults..4 Regulatory Context.4.1 Existing Title 4, Part 6 Standards The window performance requirements for low-rise residential buildings were last updated as part of the 013 code cycle. The prescriptive U-factor for all Climate Zones was set at 0.3. The SHGC depends on the type of climate. In climates with cooling, Climate Zones, 4, and 6-16, the prescriptive SHGC is a maximum of 0.. In the milder coastal climates that have mostly heating, Climate Zones 1, 3, and, there is no prescriptive SHGC requirement. The no requirement case is modeled in the compliance software with an assumed SHGC of 0.0. A Climate Zone map is shown in Figure. Figure : California climate zones Source: (California Climate Zone Map, 017).4. Relationship to Other Title 4 Requirements The impact of fenestration on energy performance is affected significantly by the Climate Zone, area, orientation, and shading in the building. The prescriptive standards limit fenestration to 0 percent of the floor area or less, and limit west facing glass to five percent of the floor area. Dwellings with glazing levels that exceed the 0 percent prescriptive limit (or five percent west facing limit) generally suffer a compliance penalty in the performance approach, however dwellings that install less glazing than the prescriptive requirements are not rewarded for reduced energy usage. There are no requirements for overhangs at this time..4.3 Relationship to State or Federal Laws Most other states follow the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). The IECC code shares many similarities with Title 4, Part 6 requirements. The 01 IECC has U-factors ranging from 0.3 to 0.40 and SHGC values as low as 0. in climates that are found in California. The 018 IECC has 019 Title 4, Part 6 CASE Report 019-RES-ENV3-F Page 4

14 U-factors in some of the climates that are also found in California. Swinging doors are subject to the same U-factor requirement as windows with an exception for 4 square foot (ft ) of door. The IECC has eight Climate Zones and breaks the requirements down by county boundaries as shown in Figure 3. Figure 3: IECC climate zones Source: (IECC Climate Zone Map, 017).4.4 Relationship to Industry Standards There are two significant voluntary programs at the national level that have greatly affected fenestration performance over the last decade. They are both relevant to Title 4, Part 6 because the performance requirements particularly for U-factor are like those in this proposal including U-factor windows and 0.17 U-factor opaque doors. During the recession, the federal government offered a tax credit for energy efficiency improvements that included windows that met a U-factor and SHGC requirements nationwide. Many manufacturers modified their product to achieve these criteria in response. The SHGC requirement was met by switching to a lower solar heat gain low emissivity coating like the ones required prescriptively in California. The U-factor typically required manufacturers to adopt the same features described in Section.4.1. ENERGY STAR Windows and Doors have also had a significant impact on the fenestration industry where a large portion of the windows sold are ENERGY STAR labeled. ENERGY STAR has four Climate Zones nationally two of which are in California as shown in Figure Title 4, Part 6 CASE Report 019-RES-ENV3-F Page

15 Figure 4: ENERGY STAR climate zones Source: (Energy Star Program Requirements, 016) ENERGY STAR criteria includes U-factors and 0. SHGC requirements for California Climate Zones as shown in Figure 4. Figure : ENERGY STAR criteria Source: (Energy Star Program Requirements, 016). Compliance and Enforcement The Statewide CASE Team collected input during the stakeholder outreach process on what compliance and enforcement issues may be associated with these measures. This section summarizes how the proposed code change will modify the code compliance process. 0 presents a detailed description of how the proposed code changes could impact various market actors. When developing this proposal, the Statewide CASE Team considered methods to streamline the compliance and enforcement process and how negative impacts on market actors who are involved in the process could be mitigated or reduced. 019 Title 4, Part 6 CASE Report 019-RES-ENV3-F Page 6

16 This code change proposal will affect new construction buildings, additions, and alterations. The key steps and changes to the compliance process are summarized below. There are training programs currently underway, such as the Energy Code Ace Title 4, Part 6 Essentials courses, that should be leveraged to provide support to the industry in preparation for the 019 Title 4, Part 6 Standards. See Section 3 for details on training programs. Design Phase: The proposed window measure does not change the current construction design process. For doors, designers that are specifying an NFRC rated door will need to indicate this on the plans. Permit Application Phase: There are no anticipated changes to the existing permit application phase process as the 019 proposal is incremental in nature. Construction Phase: This measure does not change the existing construction phase process. Inspection Phase: The window measure does not impact the existing inspection process. For doors, if an NFRC rated door is installed the NFRC label should be left on the door until it can be inspected by the building inspector and any other third party inspectors. This inspection would occur at the same time as the final inspection and would not add complexity. The incremental time for inspection is marginal. There are no significant challenges to compliance and enforcement in any of the phases identified above. There is not a significant burden placed on any market actor as it relates to compliance and enforcement. If this code change proposal is adopted, the Statewide CASE Team recommends that information presented in this section, Section 3 and Appendix B be used to develop a plan that identifies a process to develop compliance documentation and how to minimize barriers to compliance. 3. MARKET ANALYSIS The Statewide CASE Team performed a market analysis with the goals of identifying current technology availability, current product availability, and market trends. The Statewide CASE Team considered how the proposed standard may impact the market in general and individual market actors. The Statewide CASE Team gathered information about the incremental cost of complying with the proposed measure. Estimates of market size and measure applicability were identified through research and outreach with stakeholders including utility program staff, Energy Commission staff, and a wide range of industry players who were invited to participate in utility-sponsored stakeholder meetings held on September 14, 016 and March 14, Market Structure There are numerous fenestration and door manufacturers of all sizes selling product in California, and many are already offering product that meets the proposed performance levels. For windows and glazed doors, the proposed requirements represent an incremental improvement to efficiency that captures the energy savings of products already widely installed, it is anticipated that this proposal does not change the current market structure for windows and glazed doors. For swinging doors, insulated doors are already in wide use that have the characteristics needed to meet the proposed 0.0 U-factor. The proposed performance requirement will shift more swinging door products to be insulated, and will increase the use of NFRC labeled door products. 019 Title 4, Part 6 CASE Report 019-RES-ENV3-F Page 7

17 3. Technical Feasibility, Market Availability, and Current Practices 3..1 Windows Windows have some unique characteristics among energy efficiency measures. One is that homes typically have 1- windows and can have many different configurations, such as fixed, horizontal sliding, vertical sliding, casement, and sliding and swinging patio doors. Each of the configurations potentially has slightly different performance ratings due mostly to differences in the frame to glass ratio. This means that a typical home can have four or five sets of performance numbers and choosing a single set of values that can all be met prescriptively can pose challenges. The impact of windows on the building energy performance is also very dependent on the orientation. But in most cases, typical practice is to use the same low emissivity glass coatings on all orientations to maintain the same appearance. Inherently, this requires that the coatings selected must balance both a lower U-factor and an appropriate SHGC for the building, climate, and window orientations. Lower SHGC helps reduce cooling energy use, particularly with the use of TDV energy, but can increase heating. Fenestration products also provide daylight, ventilation, and egress, and have an important impact on the appearance of the building. The current prescriptive requirements for windows in low-rise residential new construction include a maximum 0.3 U-factor and a maximum 0. SHGC in Climate Zones with significant cooling including, 4, and There is no requirement for SHGC in the heating dominated Climate Zones 1, 3, and. The current criteria were established in 013 and were not changed for the 016 Standards. The window industry is well versed in what it takes to meet these requirements. The most common product includes: Low conductance frame most commonly made with PVC vinyl, wood, fiberglass Dual pane insulating glass Low emissivity glass coating Argon gas fill in the cavity Thermally improved spacer The type and placement of the low emissivity coatings is critical. Figure 6 shows the nomenclature for a dual pane insulated glass unit. Normally, low SHGC coatings are applied on surface and high SHGC coatings are on surface Title 4, Part 6 CASE Report 019-RES-ENV3-F Page 8

18 Anatomy of an IG Unit Surface # Exterior Cavity Interior Glass Spacer Figure 6: Dual pane insulating glass unit Source: (California Window Initiative, 1998) When the 013 Standards were developed, the maximum fenestration U-factors and SHGC values were reduced, but they were not reduced to the most stringent (cost-effective) level, in part because of the problem of multiple operator types, but also due to lack of experience with the product. Now that these same requirements have been in place during two code cycles, it is apparent that these values can be tightened to increase energy efficiency while most often requiring the same product described above or one with modest changes. As a result, this proposal has been crafted to capture the extra energy savings by lowering the U-factor requirement to for all Climate Zones, and the SHGC to 0.3 in cooling climates, using windows products that are already in wide use. Other technologies that could improve the performance were considered. Triple glazing is not widely available and would often require costly redesign and retooling of the window frames. Another technology, low emissivity coatings facing the conditioned space are available, but have not caught on in the marketplace. Chromogenic glass that has variable SHGC is expensive, requires controls, and is rarely used in low-rise residential construction. There are some lower SHGC coatings available, but they have a tinted appearance that make them less appealing for most low-rise residential construction. 3.. Windows in Heating Climates Climate Zone 16 is a special compliance case. Under the current Title 4, Part 6 Standards, it shares a requirement for the 0. SHGC with other climates that have more significant cooling loads. However, Climate Zone 16, with updated 019 TDV values, is now showing that there are more energy savings available with a high SHGC product than a low SHGC product, similar to other heating dominated climates. Based on this observation, the Statewide CASE Team recommends switching Climate Zone 16 to share the same no requirement for SHGC as Climate Zones 1, 3 and. There is a second issue on windows in heating climates. Some stakeholders have commented that under the performance approach compliance is harder when the most widely available extra low solar heat gain low emissivity coatings commonly used in cooling Climate Zones are specified in the heating Climate Zones 1, 3, and now 16. These products would be allowed prescriptively without penalty, because SHGC is normally treated as a maximum value. Because the 0.0 SHGC used for the no requirement case is very favorable in these Climate Zones, the change in modeling rules increases energy use on paper. In practice, though, because the no requirement status of SHGC in these Climate Zones, the SHGC values are often ignored in these Climate Zones. One idea that strikes a balance would be to change the no requirement Climate Zones to a minimum 0.3 SHGC typical of a mid-solar gain low emissivity coating that was the basis of the 008 Standards 019 Title 4, Part 6 CASE Report 019-RES-ENV3-F Page 9

19 and is a product offering available from multiple manufacturers. This will allow credit when higher SHGC products are used, but will still show some penalty for the lower SHGC products. Overall, this will make compliance easier with widely used fenestration products while encouraging the use of more appropriate higher SHGC products. The Statewide CASE Team recommends that the Energy Commission consider this recommendation, but recognize that it will not show energy savings using the traditional assumptions used for standards development. One commenter had several suggestions that could also improve upon the current modeling of no requirement climate zones. One suggestion is to make a change only affecting the ACM modeling by setting the standard design to the same 0.3 proposed in cooling dominated climates. This proposal will raise the heating energy use higher than the suggested 0.3 SHGC value, but does have the advantage that it maintains the use of no requirement in the prescriptive packages that has been in use for many years. The message to the energy consultants and builders that lower SHGC can increase energy use in the affected mild heating climates is diminished with this approach. A second suggestion was to consider using SHGC to replace the no requirement with the note that this is a better dividing line between mid and low SHGC products. The 0.3 recommendation was made to encourage a higher SHGC and utilizes a type of glass coating that is widely available in the market 3..3 Doors Currently, the standards have two door definitions door and glazed door. The door definition applies to swinging and other types of doors with less than 0 percent glazed area. This type of swinging door is commonly assigned a default U-factor of 0.0, but there is some use of insulated doors with lower U- factors. Glazed doors are then doors with 0 percent or greater glazed area. Glazed doors are normally treated the same as fenestration, such as windows and sliding or swinging glass doors. The 016 Title 4, Part 6 Standard does not have prescriptive requirements for swinging entry doors, such as a front entry door or the door between the conditioned space and an attached garage. Yet insulated doors are widely available and commonly used in California dwellings. This proposal recommends that swinging doors have a maximum 0.0 U-factor requirement that would typically be met with an insulated door, most of which consist of either fiberglass or steel outer skins with an insulating foam core. Traditionally doors between the conditioned space and attached garages were required to meet fire protection requirements typically with solid wood core doors or products otherwise identified as having 0 minute ratings. However, other parts of Title 4 have recently adopted fire sprinkler requirements that often result in fire sprinklers in the garage negating the need for fire protection doors. However, in responding to feedback from some stakeholders, this proposal has added language that exempts fire protection doors from having to meet the proposed U-factor requirements. The standards recognize two methods for determining U-factors. One is to use default tables, and the second is to use NFRC certified and labeled products. Like the situation with windows, the default values do not meet prescriptive proposed requirements, so most window products have NFRC labels. This means that swinging doors meeting the new requirement will need NFRC labels. Fortunately, these labels are already in wide use for insulated door products. ENERGY STAR data indicates that millions of door products are sold each year with NFRC labels in recent years. This proposal also recommends that the definition of a glazed door be reduced from 0 percent to percent of the door area. The origin of the 0 percent threshold dates to the beginning of the Title 4, Part 6 Standards long before there was the industry recognized NFRC that emerged in the 1990s. At this point in time, the NFRC rating system is mature and in wide use and should be used for most fenestration products to ensure accurate ratings for the many energy efficient features that current door products incorporate. 019 Title 4, Part 6 CASE Report 019-RES-ENV3-F Page 10

20 3.3 Market Impacts and Economic Assessments Impact on Builders It is expected that builders will not be impacted significantly by any one proposed code change or the collective effect of all of the proposed changes to Title 4, Part 6. Builders could be impacted for change in demand for new buildings and by construction costs. Demand for new buildings is driven more by factors such as the overall health of the economy and population growth than the cost of construction. The cost of complying with Title 4, Part 6 requirements represents a very small portion of the total building value. Increasing the building cost by a fraction of a percent is not expected to have a significant impact on demand for new buildings or the builders profits. Even as shown in Figure 7, California home prices have increased by about $300,000 in the last 0 years. In the six years between the peak of the market bubble in 006 and the bottom of the crash in 01, the median home price dropped by $0,000. The current median price is about $00,000 per single family home. The combination of all single family measures for the 016 Title 4, Part 6 Standards was around $,700 (California Energy Commission, 01). This is a cost impact of approximately half of one percent of the home value. The cost impact is negligible as compared to other variables that impact the home value. Figure 7: California median home values 1997 to 017 Source: (Zilllow, 017) Market actors will need to invest in training and education to ensure the workforce, including designers and those working in construction trades, know how to comply with the proposed requirements. Workforce training is not unique to the building industry, and is common in many fields associated with the production of goods and services. Costs associated with workforce training are typically accounted for in long-term financial planning and spread out across the unit price of many units as to avoid price spikes when changes in designs and/or processes are implemented. The builder is responsible for understanding the design requirements, ensuring that all subcontractors are aware of these requirements, and ultimately ensuring that all requirements are implemented per the design intent. Additional time may be required for these processes but it is not expected to have a significant impact on project schedule. Refer to Appendix B for a description of how the compliance process will impact builders. 019 Title 4, Part 6 CASE Report 019-RES-ENV3-F Page 11

21 3.3. Impact on Building Designers and Energy Consultants Adjusting design practices to comply with changing building codes practices is within the normal practices of building designers. Building codes (including the California Building code and model national building codes published by the International Code Council, the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials and ASHRAE 90.1) are typically updated on a three-year revision cycles. As discussed in Section 3.3.1, all market actors, including building designers and energy consultants, should (and do) plan for training and education that may be required to adjusting design practices to accommodate compliance with new building codes. As a whole, the measures the Statewide CASE Team is proposing for the 019 code cycle aim to provide designers and energy consultants with opportunities to comply with code requirements in multiple ways, thereby providing flexibility in requirements can be met. Energy consultants will not be significantly impacted by this measure. They will continue to serve as the primary resource for designers and builders for Title 4, Part 6 compliance information. With their detailed knowledge of the Title 4, Part 6 compliance software, the energy consultant will work closely with the builder in determining the most cost-effective approach for demonstrating compliance based on builder design, project location, and construction team comfort level with alternative methods. Refer to Appendix B for a description of how the compliance process will impact building designers and energy consultants Impact on Occupational Safety and Health The proposed code change does not alter any existing federal, state, or local regulations pertaining to safety and health, including rules enforced by the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health. All existing health and safety rules will remain in place. Complying with the proposed code change is not anticipated to have adverse impacts on the safety or health of occupants or those involved with the construction, commissioning, and maintenance of the building Impact on Building Owners and Occupants (Including Homeowners and Potential First-Time Homeowners) Building owners and occupants will benefit from lower energy bills. For example, the Energy Commission estimates that on average the 016 Title 4, Part 6 Standards will increase the construction cost by $,700 per single family home, but the standards will also result in a savings of $7,400 in energy and maintenance cost savings over 30 years. This is roughly equivalent to an $11 per month increase in payments for a 30-year mortgage and a monthly energy cost savings of $31 per month. Overall, the 016 Title 4, Part 6 Standards are expected to save homeowners about $40 per year relative to homeowners whose single family homes are minimally compliant with the 013 Title 4, Part 6 requirements (California Energy Commission, 01). As discussed in Section 3.4.1, when homeowners or building occupants save on energy bills, they tend to spend it elsewhere in the economy thereby creating jobs and economic growth for the California economy. Energy cost savings can be particularly beneficial to low income homeowners who typically spend a higher portion of their income on energy bills, often have trouble paying energy bills and sometimes go without food or medical care to save money for energy bills (Association, National Energy Assistance Directors, 011). Additional benefits to the builder owner and occupants will include increased interior comfort for the occupant due to reduced summer heat gains and winter heat loss resulting in greater thermal envelope integrity Impact on Building Component Retailers (Including Manufacturers and Distributors) The proposed measure is expected to have a minimal impact on the window industry as product availability is already moving towards the proposed 019 specification. Demand for window products should not be impacted by this measure. 019 Title 4, Part 6 CASE Report 019-RES-ENV3-F Page 1